I would really encourage the people who dismiss the backlash and critiques as being based on some kind of contrarian impulse to
find a better take.
That "better take" isn't served by the misleading headline.
The essay uses a lot of words to make the point that "colorblind casting" of white stories (e.g. period pieces about royal courts in 18th century Europe) harms visible minorities by taking up space where minority stories should be being told. It doesn't
say it, but the implication seems to be that stuff like Hamilton lets white liberals pat themselves on the back for a job well done while ignoring how white the entertainment industry's overall output continues to be. That line of criticism is more of an indictment of the wider culture and entertainment industry rather than of Hamilton itself. It's a criticism of what Hamilton
isn't, which, well, okay?
While it may be valid to argue that lionising slave owners and ignoring their hypocrisy on the topic of freedom causes harm, it's a
musical. It treats the founding fathers less as historical figures and more as mythic figures. When putting a production about Greek myth, you can go ahead and cast a black Dionysus - it causes no harm and allows black audience members to lay claim to a piece of culture that's unmoored from the historical context of Bronze Age Greece.
Likewise with George Washington. Yes, he was a real person who lived a real life, who had real blood on his hands, who fought for "freedom" for himself and his patrician class while enslaving hundreds of people, but he is
also part of the pantheon of American civic myth. The myth grinds off his rough edges and shapes his vibe to fit an ideal form of America - not what America
is, but what it
should be (in the eyes of the storyteller, whoever that might be). The real man should be examined, criticised and evaluated in historical work and discussion, absolutely, but there is also no getting rid of him from the civic pantheon. Until the day the US government literally dissolves and is replaced he will be there, complete with wooden teeth and his upright zeal (and even then, he may only grow stronger). The right wing everywhere understands this and propagates myth to tell the story they want to tell of a pure, righteous genesis to the country forged by larger-than-life heroes who looked a lot like the elites of today.
As a mythic figure, Washington can be shaped and moulded to tell a better story, embody a better ideal, one that includes more than just white elites and their progeny and fulfils the promise of ideals like liberty and justice for all. That's what Hamilton is, or tries to be - an American civic myth that in its telling includes and champions more than just WASPs. If it fails to do that or doesn't go far enough, fair enough, but don't mistake it or characterise it as something it's not.
